Obamacare

[Pliny]

Well, we all know of the horrid system of health care that existed in the US and has finally been undone by Obama and the entire Democrat team. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid must share some of the responsibility for that change.

Well, most people in the US have private health care insurance which they pay for. The costs are based upon the risks assessed by the health care insurance companies. Luckily, there isn't a lot of competition so there is some protection from government in that respect for Insurance companies, the minimization of competition.

Well, the costs of having to cover another approximately 30 million people without any risk assessment will indeed raise the cost of private health insurance and without insurance companies having the ability to do what they do - measure risk and set a price- they will soon be filing for bankruptcy because they have no ability to assess risk. They will attempt to stay in business but it will involve increases in premiums. This will of course be intolerable to the Obama adminstration and they will have to invoke the public option.

They will try and do something about the immigration problem by granting amnesty and allowing the new citizens to vote for the Democratic candidate of their choice. No one votes for the party that might possibly remove their benefits and entitlements so we know they will vote Liberal -yay!

Soon the United States will look just like Canada and we can unite as one with Mexico maybe - remember those immigrants are going to have quite a bit of power and may want free borders to go and see family and friends.

So I see the importance that public health care will play in the future to help grow government and further grant entitlement to it's poor downtrodden citizens.

All of this will have to occur before November though. The people must experience the cold and unconcerned capitalist greed of Health care insurance companies and demand government do something. What better time to reintroduce the Public option! It will be the fault of insurance companies that prices are so high but Obama will have a solution.

[Michael Hardner]

This seems to be sarcastic, but I can't tell what you're really saying underneath. Surely this distopia can't happen before November, so I guess you're saying that the American left is going to fail ? Or are you glibly voicing the true desires of the Obama administration.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Pliny]

This seems to be sarcastic, but I can't tell what you're really saying underneath. Surely this distopia can't happen before November, so I guess you're saying that the American left is going to fail ? Or are you glibly voicing the true desires of the Obama administration.

Insurance companies are insurance companies because they can assess risks. Government's that decree they cannot discriminate in their coverage are eliminating their ability to assess risk which is their very business. They are not successful because they can sell insurance - they are successful because they can assess risks. Good bye to insurance companies that can't freely assess risk and must just hand out policies. It's a recipe for disaster. If amnesty is granted to illegal aliens they will further swamp the system.

Can you say Government run health care?

[Bonam]

I believe the administration thinks the insurance companies will be able to stay in business because all the millions of uninsured healthy young people will now be forced to pay insurance premiums by law. This is where all the money will come from to pay for the sick and the poor. Many of the 30 million now covered will be those that had no need for coverage. Basically, rob the young and promising to pay for everyone else.

Also, that premiums on healthy people will continue to rise as insurance companies are forced to provide insurance for people with expensive medical conditions at an equivalent price is a given.

Personally, I might have to look to sign up to become a Christian Scientist or something... I suspect they will have quite the surge in membership.

[Sir Bandelot]

I believe the administration thinks the insurance companies will be able to stay in business because all the millions of uninsured healthy young people will now be forced to pay insurance premiums by law. This is where all the money will come from to pay for the sick and the poor. Many of the 30 million now covered will be those that had no need for coverage. Basically, rob the young and promising to pay for everyone else.

Bonam brings up a good point, that is the premise of socialized health care. Everyone who can pay must pay, and it's based on the assumption that the vast majority are healthy and won't need to use the coverage. Not unlike the general principle of how most of the profit is made by insurance companies. The difference is, in a laissez faire unregulated system, the insurance companies get to decide who is eligible for coverage and who's not, and what specifically that coverage entails. That of course leads to complete gouging of the public, in order to make the billions of dollars in profits that these companies make, year after year. Because that is the outcome of an unabated desire for profit.

How is that helpful in terms of providing real health care? This form of insurance is otally absurd.

But I think the point that it's "robbing the young to pay for everyone else" is a bit of a stretch. Not quite "robbing", as some young people do need health care. But also, these healthy young people will get to grow old, and eventually need the same benefits.

But I feel they made the wrong move in trying to pacify the capitalists. Although the tangled mess they are in up to this point in health care leaves them little room for real reform.

[Oleg Bach]

AMERICA now has a Canadian situation - big buisness can now continue to effect social policy and so-called health care..now they can addict the poor to synthetic opiates - all payed by the tax payer..addict the stupid to anti-depresants - and they all pitch into the kitty- Here is the similarity - the drug companies now can charge what they want and literally make a killing - funny - how it turned out so similar to our system - we all pay into it - and the social policy in place makes sure that none of the finacial benefits go to the average person - it goes all to the super rich - Obama maintains the status quo and has increased the wealth of the 1 per centers..the parasites now can write their own ticket. IMAGINE a culture where the rich thrive on the weak and sick --- Obama is just a fat white guy.

[Sir Bandelot]

AMERICA now has a Canadian situation - big buisness can now continue to effect social policy and so-called health care..now they can addict the poor to synthetic opiates - all payed by the tax payer..addict the stupid to anti-depresants - and they all pitch into the kitty- Here is the similarity - the drug companies now can charge what they want and literally make a killing - funny - how it turned out so similar to our system - we all pay into it - and the social policy in place makes sure that none of the finacial benefits go to the average person - it goes all to the super rich - Obama maintains the status quo and has increased the wealth of the 1 per centers..the parasites now can write their own ticket. IMAGINE a culture where the rich thrive on the weak and sick --- Obama is just a fat white guy.

In other words, it has inherited the worst of both worlds...

Hope you are wrong but the cynic in me would not be surprised, at this point.

[Oleg Bach]

In other words, it has inherited the worst of both worlds...

Hope you are wrong but the cynic in me would not be surprised, at this point.

Money rules the world if you have not noticed..YOU do not take the position of president and not preside over the status quo ..which is the establishment..the money boys..of course there is new and greater profits to be made now in America sucking up the lives of the sick and weary,,,welcome to more auto-cannibalism.

[Pliny]

I believe the administration thinks the insurance companies will be able to stay in business because all the millions of uninsured healthy young people will now be forced to pay insurance premiums by law. This is where all the money will come from to pay for the sick and the poor. Many of the 30 million now covered will be those that had no need for coverage. Basically, rob the young and promising to pay for everyone else.

That's a good point. This may be what they think. Those forced to buy will offset those who can't afford it. The only problem I see is that in order for this to work costs to insurance companies would have to remain stagnant. There will be an increase in the demand for service so those in the health care industry providing the service will raise their prices. Insurance companies will have to thus raise the price of premiums in order to purchase medical services for their customers. The cost factor has to be factored in to the price of premiums as well as the risk assessment. I don't think that has been considered and risk assessment, meaning an inability to adjust price to risk, is overridden by it being compulsory. I think these two things will increase premiums greater than the increase in the number of new buyers.

In the end, if there is no one available to provide the service of delivering health care due to overburden, the cost will have to rise for everyone because. You cannot override the simple law of supply and demand.

Sir Bandelot believes it is nasty insurance companies that are to blame for high costs and they make enough profit to pay their CEO's millions in salaries, benefits and pork.

They also pay living wages for millions of other people in the health insurance industry.

Personally, I might have to look to sign up to become a Christian Scientist or something... I suspect they will have quite the surge in membership.

Ummm..I don't follow

[Bonam]

That's a good point. This may be what they think. Those forced to buy will offset those who can't afford it. The only problem I see is that in order for this to work costs to insurance companies would have to remain stagnant. There will be an increase in the demand for service so those in the health care industry providing the service will raise their prices. Insurance companies will have to thus raise the price of premiums in order to purchase medical services for their customers. The cost factor has to be factored in to the price of premiums as well as the risk assessment. I don't think that has been considered and risk assessment, meaning an inability to adjust price to risk, is overridden by it being compulsory. I think these two things will increase premiums greater than the increase in the number of new buyers.

In the end, if there is no one available to provide the service of delivering health care due to overburden, the cost will have to rise for everyone because. You cannot override the simple law of supply and demand.

Right, and there will supposedly be no problem, because government will simply force everyone to buy insurance, even if the premiums rise.

Sir Bandelot believes it is nasty insurance companies that are to blame for high costs and they make enough profit to pay their CEO's millions in salaries, benefits and pork.

They also pay living wages for millions of other people in the health insurance industry.

I'm sure insurance companies do play a role in increasing the overall cost of health care. After all, a portion of the insurance premium goes to the insurance companies' operations, profit, etc. Statistically you'd be better off if you didn't buy insurance but just saved money yourself and used it as needed on health care.

Ummm..I don't follow

They are exempt from being forced to pay the penalty if they do not purchase health insurance.

[Pliny]

Right, and there will supposedly be no problem, because government will simply force everyone to buy insurance, even if the premiums rise.

Well, we'll see how it all balances out. Government has a tendency to bankrupt it's programs.

I'm sure insurance companies do play a role in increasing the overall cost of health care. After all, a portion of the insurance premium goes to the insurance companies' operations, profit, etc. Statistically you'd be better off if you didn't buy insurance but just saved money yourself and used it as needed on health care.

There really isn't much difference between government being the middleman or insurance corporations being the middleman. The sole diffrence is that governments get everybody to contribute and insurance companies are private corporations where participation is voluntary.

They are exempt from being forced to pay the penalty if they do not purchase health insurance.

Ok. Didn't know that. Good piece of information.

[August1991]

I believe the administration thinks the insurance companies will be able to stay in business because all the millions of uninsured healthy young people will now be forced to pay insurance premiums by law. This is where all the money will come from to pay for the sick and the poor. Many of the 30 million now covered will be those that had no need for coverage. Basically, rob the young and promising to pay for everyone else.

Also, that premiums on healthy people will continue to rise as insurance companies are forced to provide insurance for people with expensive medical conditions at an equivalent price is a given.

Personally, I might have to look to sign up to become a Christian Scientist or something... I suspect they will have quite the surge in membership.

I haven't looked carefully at Obama's health reform but Bonam, you have expressed my initial conclusion.

As I understand it, the new law requires that private insurance companies cover children up to the age of 26, and people with pre-diagnosed conditions. Moreover, it also requires that everyone have health insurance. Small companies must offer insurance to their employees, the self-employed must buy it. The tax system will supposedly enforce these requirements.

I frankly don't understand how this is going to work. I simply see ample opportunity for avoidance or fraud. What stops a new health insurance company starting up (a subsidiary of an existing company) and choosing its insured carefully?

To my knowledge, no country in the world has introduced socialized health care this way. We didn't do this in Canada, and this was not the method in France or the UK. The US didn't introduce Social Security this way.

----

Obama's health insurance reform strikes me more like US federal regulation of the auto industry over the past 40 years or so. Now then, if you think that was a success, then you may view Obama's reform as good.

Edited April 4, 2010 by August1991

[Sir Bandelot]

There really isn't much difference between government being the middleman or insurance corporations being the middleman. The sole diffrence is that governments get everybody to contribute and insurance companies are private corporations where participation is voluntary.

At least with government health care the playing field is level. In other words, the rules of the game are the same for everyone. Private corporations can set their own rules, so that every insurance policy can be different. Coverage for different medical problems depends on the specific corporate policy. If the rules are interpreted the same way they are with cars, you might not "qualify" for coverage of your illness due to some extenuating circumstance. Example, a person gets cancer. The insurance company finds out they're an alcoholic, and this invalidates their coverage. This could happen because the by-laws of a corporation are independent of national laws. Don't like it? No problem. Go get your insurance somewhere else. You might be paying premiums for years but when the time comes that you need it, they might refuse to cover you.

This is why corporations are a threat to our liberty, because they undermine common law, but do so in a way that's technically not illegal. You as the consumer still have an "out". Of course thats not true when the only choice you have is to go with another corporation. But that's called freedom, to make a "choice".

[Bonam]

At least with government health care the playing field is level. In other words, the rules of the game are the same for everyone. Private corporations can set their own rules, so that every insurance policy can be different. Coverage for different medical problems depends on the specific corporate policy.

As it should. What if I don't want a comprehensive policy that covers everything? What if I am young and healthy and only want minimal coverage? What is wrong with me having the option to pay less and get such coverage?

If the rules are interpreted the same way they are with cars, you might not "qualify" for coverage of your illness due to some extenuating circumstance. Example, a person gets cancer. The insurance company finds out they're an alcoholic, and this invalidates their coverage.

What is wrong with this? If an insurance company refuses to cover alcoholics and smokers, then those people that it does cover will pay lower rates, since the average health of the persons insured by that company will be better. I would certainly like to sign up with an insurance company that did not provide service to smokers, alcoholics, or other people that put themselves at increased risk of expensive, long-term, diseases.

This could happen because the by-laws of a corporation are independent of national laws.

The terms of insurance are not by-laws. They are terms in a contract. Contracts must obey all applicable national law, and they do.

Don't like it? No problem. Go get your insurance somewhere else. You might be paying premiums for years but when the time comes that you need it, they might refuse to cover you.

Read the fine print and you won't have this problem.

This is why corporations are a threat to our liberty, because they undermine common law, but do so in a way that's technically not illegal.

No, corporations follow the law or get subject to really gigantic lawsuits really damn fast. They do not undermine common law. There is nothing in the law that says that company X must provide person Y with coverage, except for contract law which may enforce the terms of any contract that may exist between company X and person Y.

You as the consumer still have an "out". Of course thats not true when the only choice you have is to go with another corporation. But that's called freedom, to make a "choice".

It most certainly is a choice. What is wrong with having to do some research and going with a corporation/policy that is right for you?

Edited April 4, 2010 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

It most certainly is a choice. What is wrong with having to do some research and going with a corporation/policy that is right for you?

Sir Bandelot's point here (and actually, he stated it very clearly) was that it could (and does) sometimes turn out that none of the corporation/policies are right for you. That's not really a "choice" as the word is generally understood.

[Pliny]

Sir Bandelot's point here (and actually, he stated it very clearly) was that it could (and does) sometimes turn out that none of the corporation/policies are right for you. That's not really a "choice" as the word is generally understood.

If there is a choice not offered by the free market the demand will be filled. I would suggest that choices are limited by government regulation.

You see if "corporations" were the problem other corporations or businesses could easily acquire the business of the people. Because they are heavily regulated not too many corporations can start up. If it came down to it and the public really wanted change they would get it. It sounds like they do want change but not the kind of change Obama has in mind.

[Sir Bandelot]

In the current system, before Obamanization, people with pre-existing medical conditions could not get coverage. Or, they could but likely would have to pay huge premiums. I assume that this must have been the case, because one of the changes Obama brought in is that coverage MUST be provided, even if the person has pre-existing conditions.

And to me, that speaks volumes about what the previous system was worth. Providing health care was secondary, seen as a business loss.

The system was in place long enough to be tested and validated. It did not suffice. By the very same nature of supply and demand, it had to be changed. Not sure whether this change is the right one, it seems to be a kind of hybrid bastardization of capitalism and socialism.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

In the current system, before Obamanization, people with pre-existing medical conditions could not get coverage. Or, they could but likely would have to pay huge premiums. I assume that this must have been the case, because one of the changes Obama brought in is that coverage MUST be provided, even if the person has pre-existing conditions.

This not exactly right....pre-existing condition exclusions can be compatible with insurance products for other covered services without "huge premiums".

And to me, that speaks volumes about what the previous system was worth. Providing health care was secondary, seen as a business loss.

No, it's not a loss at all. It is a realized cost offset by calculated group premiums. Providing health care is the business of ......providers! Imagine that.

[Sir Bandelot]

This not exactly right....pre-existing condition exclusions can be compatible with insurance products for other covered services without "huge premiums".

No, it's not a loss at all. It is a realized cost offset by calculated group premiums. Providing health care is the business of ......providers! Imagine that.

But they don't have to be, when there are no regulations. And the rules for group vs. individual insurance differs. I suspect even within groups there is a health assessment necessary for each employee when they join the system. Not all companies offer such group insurance, and when that happens the person must either try to get their own individual insurance, apply for medicaid (only eligible if their income is LOW enough), or do nothing.

"(Individual) Insurers are getting double the profit that they make in the group market. Why is it so lucrative? Because they exclude anybody and everybody who has even a remote sense of risk associated with their health care," says Dr. Bryan Liang, who has studied the insurance industry for more than a decade.

"They want to know everything about you. Your credit history," for example, Liang said. "Your credit history is something that is very interesting to them, and they want to know about it."

It's not just your credit history, but your driving record and the sports you play.

Insurers have even been known to question "friends and neighbors" about "morality and lifestyle" — using all of this information to decide who they will cover and who they won't.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/23/cbsnews_investigates/main2843007.shtml

Apparently tens of millions fall into the gray region where they don't have group insurance, can't afford the individual plan and make too much to be eligible for medicaid. I think those are the people they tried to cover in this reform bill.

-Not saying I think Obama's reform is a good system. I'm no expert on US health care, but from what I read it is the most expensive system in the world in terms of per-capita cost, and ranked low in effectiveness (47th out of 190 countries) in more than one study in the past ten years. If the system does not meet the needs of the people effectively, it must be changed. That's yer supply and demand concept

[bush_cheney2004]

But they don't have to be, when there are no regulations. And the rules for group vs. individual insurance differs. I suspect even within groups there is a health assessment necessary for each employee when they join the system. Not all companies offer such group insurance, and when that happens the person must either try to get their own individual insurance, apply for medicaid (only eligible if their income is LOW enough), or do nothing.

No....these are more misconceptions. Standard employer groups (there can be many at one employer) do not require assessments for any but the most exotic products. Actuaries are employed to crunch the numbers based on readily available demographic and health data. Other options include afforadble catastrophic care policies, state programs with income thresholds above Medicaid, HSAs, and products brokered across multiple groups.

"(Individual) Insurers are getting double the profit that they make in the group market. Why is it so lucrative? Because they exclude anybody and everybody who has even a remote sense of risk associated with their health care," says Dr. Bryan Liang, who has studied the insurance industry for more than a decade.

If this were true, then the insurance giants would enjoy far better gross margins than they do. Banks do far better.

Apparently tens of millions fall into the gray region where they don't have group insurance, can't afford the individual plan and make too much to be eligible for medicaid. I think those are the people they tried to cover in this reform bill.

Probably, many millions simply do not want or need medical insurance. They choose to spend their incomes on other things.

-Not saying I think Obama's reform is a good system. I'm no expert on US health care, but from what I read it is the most expensive system in the world in terms of per-capita cost, and ranked low in effectiveness (47th out of 190 countries) in more than one study in the past ten years. If the system does not meet the needs of the people effectively, it must be changed. That's yer supply and demand concept

Depends on what the objective is. Canada's system is the most expensive single payer program for universal access, but ranks low as well. Supply and demand are also in play, which is why care is rationed.

Edited April 5, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Probably, many millions simply do not want or need medical insurance. They choose to spend their incomes on other things.

Indeed. And now that choice is being stolen from them to pay for more socialism.

[Sir Bandelot]

Probably, many millions simply do not want or need medical insurance. They choose to spend their incomes on other things.

Not any more, apparently.

The real joke is, although they must now pay into a system, the terms of coverage are still dictated by the insurance corporation. Not "universal coverage" at all.

[Oleg Bach]

Wait until America wires up 100 million hicks on hillbilly heroine ...and all payed for by taxes and legally prescribed..what a scam-- billion of dollars to be made sucking the life and strength our of the sick, weak and unaware..Obama represents big buisness and a nation of rich pharma bastards ...socialism always serves the rich and parasitic.

[Pliny]

Serves the super rich and uses the parasitic.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not any more, apparently.

The real joke is, although they must now pay into a system, the terms of coverage are still dictated by the insurance corporation. Not "universal coverage" at all.

No, they can take the tax hit as a far cheaper alternative. If Obama wants to use the flawed car insurance model, then surely he knows how easy it is to beat that scheme too.